|
|
Defect 1
Looking at Family:Francis Barnard and Hannah Merrill (1), and see that Savage and Sheldon (see Person:Francis Barnard (2)) are claiming this is Hannah Marvin. Still, there seem to be some solid references on the page proper. Do you think this is a case of an error in Savage? (I'm trying to be diligent about noting such issues in the transcript I'm working on). Thanks! --jrm03063 13:24, 9 March 2012 (EST)
- According to Marvin Descendants, 25-26, Matthew and Reinold Marvin had three sisters: Margaret, died young; Mary, married John Hayse and Richard Wood; Elizabeth, married Robert Edwards. Page 15 of Hartford VR (americanancestors.org) [Barnard] Frainces, m. Hanna Meruell, Aug. 15, 1644 [Book of Distributions:21]; [Barnard] Francis, m. Hanna Merrell, Aug. 15, 1644 [Frank Farnsworth Starr manuscript:26]. Barbour's Families of Early Hartford follows the Hartford VR. The other secondary sources I was able to check call her Hannah Marvin. Francis Barnard is not mentioned in the "Merrill Memorial"
- Conclusion: The Hartford records are closer to the primary source than the others. For that reason I'd say Francis Barnard's wife was Hannah Merrill, origin unknown (not related to John Merrill of Hartford). The absence of any evidence of a Hannah Marvin sister to Reinold and Matthew reenforces that conclusion.--jaques1724 15:15, 9 March 2012 (EST)
- I'll just add that Sheldon really doesn't add any weight to the scale, since he gives no explanation of where his conclusion came from, and most likely he was relying on Savage. Hence he is only a reflection of the object already seen, not anything new. The lack of evidence for the sister is pretty striking actually, since she was not named in the alleged father's will, and his death in 1615 constrains her birth to be on the far reaches of reasonable given a marriage in 1644 and 5 or 6 children that we know about.
- It seems likely that this was a mis-reading of the record, as double r and interior vowels are always tricky, and some colonial writers make a double-ell look like a small-n, especially if blotted, faded, stained, torn, etc. So "Marvin" may be understandable. In fact, a researcher might want to keep a slighly open mind, and follow the History of Hadley, which says "Merrill, Meruil, or Marvin". But it seems pretty definite she was not a sister of Matthew and Reinold Marvin and even if Savage read it as "Marvin", he should have qualified this with a "perhaps", since it does not appear that he could have had any evidence of such a relationship, merely an assumption. --Jrich 16:26, 9 March 2012 (EST)
|
|
